You may have seen the furore caused by Labour Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn’s use of the word ‘choose’ twice in a speech to the LGBTQIPA community recently. I have traced an interview with JC and the speech in full, in which the wording and context become clearer. The Labour Party press office spokesperson stated in a comment to Pink News that “Jeremy clearly doesn’t believe that being gay is a choice. He obviously meant people should be able to choose how they live their lives.”
That is not good enough for me and more saddening was the litany of excuses that people were coming out with to explain and minimise, to excuse and, in the end, to silence those people who were angered by the wording. The litany in and of itself shows the importance of the use of language and the meanings both implied and inferred. That’s what this blog is about.
Here are some quotes from just one debate on Facebook, as an example and without use of names to protect the guilty (all sic):
“Bollux..this is just another way of turning people against him…fuck sake , however he chose to word it is his way..people are sometimes too bloody sensitive to speaking PC language”
“ …and it is a choice.. we are born and make choices…whether it be sexuality, diet, thoughts, behaviour ,musical taste…”
“Jezza is coming from the place he feels passionate about. He’s not a bloody God, he’s human and if he worded something ‘slightly’ different from how other people would then so be it. Stop nitpicking at everything … His intentions are in the correct place. Grow the fuck up people. Peace!”
“Being attracted to men or women is a choice…spirit/emotion of a person is what your own spirit connects with.”
“We should all be mindful of not becoming too petty over an unfortunate choice of words / deliverance .. and stay strong ,supportive of his overall intention surely?”
“A shitty ‘mistake’ but we need to keep striving for the ‘bigger picture’ and not getting so overly sensitive to and distracted by pettiness.”
When those making such comments are questioned about their words, responses included:
“I respectfully disagree [to someone stating Jeremy Corbyn’s use of the words was casually homophobic terminology]. And for the record im absolutely not homophobic.”
“I hear you, yes, however maybe focus on healing your own strength and internal peace instead of looking for someone to blame … 💖 That’s how it comes across sometimes.”
“I’ve just had attacks in my direction for expressing something I think to be fine. If that has been misunderstood then I can’t help that, I haven’t meant to offend . This is why fb fucks me off.. keyboard warriors . #misunderstood”
“I have no problem at all with any of it. seems as though you enjoy the whole victim vibe and are ‘assuming’ I mean something I don’t. even now.”
“What I see here is you enjoy the platform of attention and arguing. And right here mocking what I’m trying to explain, like I’ve stated in other topics with other people, I guess I’m a bit crap at explaining myself in a way that is understood.”
“Your attitude is like that of a bully, and I know youre not that. That’s how it’s coming across ..you know who I am so I ask that you don’t label me as being and meaning something that’s not true.”
“And to add to your sentence about when you told me you were ‘gay’ , so what? I don’t care who or what you are..your choice.” (my bold)
“Ahhhhhh privilege….that’s the next argument then ? Us and them Etc… Well I disagree….and maybe you could wind your neck in a little too…. I’ve had plenty of stuff I’ve had to stand for that I’ve been bullied/persecuted for over time…..or are you saying your situation is more important than mine ?”
Read through the above quotes carefully. Look at the wording, comprehend the implications, and the inferences you may be making. Note how any challenge to the inferences is met with turning around on the person challenging, without stopping to take a moment to try to reflect on what the people challenging who are of the identity about which the wording ‘choose’ has a direct oppressive effect. It’s an insular, ego-centred form of thinking which is not partisan in politics or ideology. All of us, including me, have this propensity. For me, it lacks empathy which is what I consider the fundamental condition of us as humanes (‘e’ deliberate).
Note the use of words such as ‘petty’, ‘mistake’, ‘unfortunate’, ‘PC language’, ‘too bloody sensitive’, wind your neck in’, ‘looking for someone to blame’, and my favourite, ‘grow the fuck up, people’. This comes from people who define and present themselves as left-wing, open-minded, caring people who don’t hold any form of bigotry within themselves.
Don’t make excuses for this or any other type of benign bigotry, because that is an oxymoron. No bigotry is benign. Don’t do it for even the most liberally and/or left-minded person. Don’t do it especially for them; it’s a creeping toxic subconscious bigotry which begets and legitimises the more extreme actions and words). Don’t make assumptions about what a person ‘might’ have meant, you don’t know that context and you can equally assume the worst with just as much validity. Don’t excuse me or anyone else, please.
Don’t even say JC meant it was about the choice to live openly as an LGBTQIPA identifying person. The use of choose or choice in the language used is still problematic because it is still about stating one has to choose to live one’s life in honesty and openness with oneself and those around you, and all the crap that comes with it through prejudice. This doesn’t happen if you choose to live true to yourself if you are straight.
It is privilege not to recognise the impact of the words. They are harmful.
Living true to one’s sexuality should NEVER be a choice or have to be expressed as one. Telling anyone that their truth to live who they are is in any way a choice takes away the responsibility of anyone privileged not to be in those discriminated against groups to examine their own attitudes and understand what they are saying, believing and the impact it has on other’s lives. I am shocked that this is not being understood. That shock too, is my privilege.
We all have some form of privilege. Don’t excuse actions or word because of that privilege. We may not be to blame for our privilege but we do have the responsibility to address it. Don’t excuse me from my responsibility, that just puts the responsibility on those who are discriminated against. You must not, you should not and you cannot.
Whether I am leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister, your friend, your family, your parent or your child, don’t excuse me, please.
My recent Facebook status read:
“For anyone on my friend’s list who thinks privatised healthcare is a good thing:
(a) Do you think a person with six pre-existing chronic conditions will find affordable insurance?;
(b) Do you think a person who is on two different forms of medication for the rest of their life will be able to find affordable insurance?;
(c) Do you think that a person with a pre-existing condition that will require chemo/radiotherapy/expensive cancer drugs at some point in the future but is unable to pinpoint when, will be able to find affordable insurance?
If you have answered no to any of those questions, are you still happy with privatised healthcare being introduced in this country as a result of this?
If you have said yes, you have just denied me healthcare, and probably killed me, so please delete me from your friends list. Thanks.
(The intent of this is to personalise the issue and to show how this will affect people in real life. This is why the problems with the NHS have me scared to the point of panic and avoidance of the issue).”
I am bloody terrified; having literal panic attacks at the thought of what is happening, has been happening, and will happen to the institution beloved by the majority* of people in this country, and what that will mean for me personally. It’s a painful irony, and not a funny one, that the decreases in mental health funding and the crisis in the NHS is exacerbating mental health conditions and triggering stress flare-ups in chronic pain conditions for so many.
This is not some fearful fantasy cooked up by the left in a bid to defame the government. After all, it is not just the current Conservative and previous coalition of Conservative and Liberal Democrat governments which have caused the crisis. Originally implemented in 1992 under the Conservative government of John Major, PFI was expanded across the board under the ‘new Labour’ government of Tony Blair to include a large injection of funds to the National Health Service. Repaying these loans which charged interest above the standard rate left many Trusts in dire straits and directly led to the Save Lewisham Hospital A&E & Children’s/Maternity services campaign, which took Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health since 2012, and won.
He has since seen to it that the law has been amended so this does not happen again.
The Telegraph newspaper wrote in July 2015 that “The bill for private finance initiative (PFI) hospital schemes will hit £2 billion for the first time this year – or £3,729 every 60 seconds.”**
That is profit for private healthcare companies coming out of the NHS budget, which loans charge interest and have led to severe shortages in NHS provision and swingeing cuts across the board.
A friend of mine, who shall remain anonymous, informed me of their personal experience:
“I’ve worked for a business delivering NHS services; … I was a Practice Manager. GP Partnerships have a primary interest in being doctors, doing what they do to help the masses. A business’ primary interest is… making money! So they have ghost patients (people who’ve moved abroad/away and have not re-registered with an alternative GP practice), they cut corners, they squeeze as much as they can from the staff, both clinical & administrative, they buy cheap equipment, have no interest in training staff to improve their skills, don’t follow “Good Practice Guidelines” when it comes to infection control (flooring & furniture that cannot be easily decontaminated), amongst other things because they don’t have to & because it’ll cut into their profits. I left because… IT FRIGHTENED ME – it would only be a matter of time, until something went drastically wrong. Apparently they got through 3 Practice Managers in a year, because none of us would lower our standards to suit “the business”… but it was an insight into what would be if we lost the NHS.”
This diagram shows the cost to the NHS simply for building new premises, as a result of PFI funding:
If the NHS is forced into showing a profit for shareholders through funding from private initiatives, it is no longer putting patients first. The fundamental principles upon which the NHS was founded by Aneurin (Nye) Bevan, on 5th July 1948, were***:
- that it meet the needs of everyone
- that it be free at the point of delivery
- that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay
These will no longer apply and indeed given the creeping privatisation already occurring, it could be said that they don’t apply already.
On Saturday 4th March 2017 there will be a National Demonstration starting at Tavistock Square, London at 12 noon in support of the NHS, organised by the People’s Assembly. Further, and if you read this in time, there is an initial NHS Day of Action on Saturday 14th January.
To keep up to date on all NHS campaigns, and for useful tips on how to keep the momentum of protest and organisation going, go to the Stop the STPS homepage.
If you can’t attend the demonstration (or even if you can), write to your MP (details of whom can be found at They Work For You, along with their voting record if you are interested), sign petitions constantly in circulation, talk about the NHS and what it means to you, and keep the pressure on.
We are being watched by millions across the world, aghast at what we are doing to the best service our country has ever introduced. The only people who do not feel shocked and empathise with our fears are those who will profit from privatisation, and those people are not the ones who so desperately need the NHS.
Don’t let anyone tell you the funding isn’t there. In 2016 the government agreed to spend over £200billion on renewing Trident, our nuclear weapons stock. An increase in taxes on the very rich, introduction of the Robin Hood Tax and closing up of tax loopholes exploited by individuals and businesses would more than meet the funding deficit.
You may not need the NHS much now, but we are an ageing and increasing population. You will need it eventually and maybe sooner than you think. Do all you can to make sure it is still there. SAVE THE NHS. You never know, the life you save could be your own.
I have been musing a lot on the definition and practice of ‘being a friend’; partly because I had to cancel attendance at two 40th birthday parties in the space of five days due to a chronic pain flare-up, and partly because I have at last count four friends (not known to each other, I move in many and varied groupings) who are currently going through extremely painful break-ups from abusive relationships and I have been thinking deeply about how best I can support them and their individual needs, and how to recognise if I should back away or am being overbearing.
Well, Merry Christmas to all, right?!* Life doesn’t stop because the festive season starts, and for many, including some of those I care very deeply for, Christmas is a reminder of how damaged, ‘imperfect’ (especially when compared to the many advertisements inculcating a normality that doesn’t exist below surface image), and unhappy their past and/or current experience may be.
I fear strongly that I am a ‘bad’ friend; I fear that my conditions will prevent me from being what I can be to those I love, and I know that is a part of my conditions to have this fear. I think it is common to have these fears, and that it may be possible, just a little, that I overthink things!
I try to show my care for my friends and maintain my awareness that we all see our lives through a filter; a prism concentrating light into what we ourselves can only perceive, separate and apart from even those stood next to us in life. I hang on to the truth that is I can only be responsible for that which I can control, which as I grow older is revealed to be less and less.
But still, I worry, and I am sure many of you do too. For many reasons including but not limited to personal preference, I am a ‘stay at home’ bod; content to be a couch potato surrounded by books, television and whatever hobby I am playing with at that time (genealogy since you didn’t ask). I also find talking on the phone difficult; the written word is my medium (some may say otherwise! Bah humbug to them!). As I get older, my friends and I are drifting geographically, if not in personality and chronology.
Friendship does change. It can evolve into something deeper or it can drift into separate pathways, occasionally crossing but never as close as when walking the same journey.
It took me a very long time before I could say “I love you” to my family (we weren’t a demonstrative family – it’s taken me a while to teach them but I started when I was around 20 and now they are completely house-trained), much longer to say it to my friends (and it still feels awkward sometimes, but I want them to know), but that doesn’t mean I did not feel it. There are so many different kinds of love, as many as there are people to love and reasons for loving.
I also know what being a friend isn’t. It isn’t mindlessly supporting someone even when you see them behaving in ways which are damaging to them and others. Being a friend means pointing out kindly (at first!) what results their behaviour is having and how it is not the best way to behave. It means an awareness of our responsibilities towards others. It means that your best friend may be a domestic abuser and it is not being a ‘good’ friend to deny that this is occurring. It means supporting them to stop being an abuser. It means recognising no-one is inherently good or bad, and having your own moral compass and principles which allow you to understand the complexities of human beings and to support and love in a way that minimises pain, as pain is not something that can be avoided in life.
Being a friends means stopping someone, or at least trying to stop them, making a huge mistake. One example is contained in this video I made with the help of my Sanford Collective theatre group friends (now sadly defunct), Stop Assault Before It Starts.
Being a friend does not mean all take and no give, but equally it does not mean all give and no take. It’s a balancing act, and one which can be complicated by myriad interchanging factors such as health, geography, changing careers, unemployment, and much more.=
It’s heart-breaking when a friendship ends, more so when it is through discovering that someone you had believed knew you as a person does something to betray that they have not understood you at all. This has happened to me twice in my life, and I still feel the pain now even though it has been many, many years. That’s when I learned how hard forgiveness can be, and what was my responsibility in that ending of a friendship.
But ultimately, I hope and desire my friends to know this:
- I do love them.
- I am very loyal to them.
- I would fight their corner, without question.
- I will support them, whatever.
- I respect them.
- I will not allow them to destroy themselves, if at all in my power to prevent it.
- I will recognise their autonomy and try not to step on their toes.
- I will not condone or ignore cruel, painful, abusive behaviour to me or anyone else.
- I believe in giving many, many chances, but there is a limit. Takes years to get there, mind.
- If there is gossip floating about, I may hear it if I cannot avoid it but as a rule will only believe information if it comes direct from the horse’s mouth. Not that I am comparing them to a horse.
- No-one is all good or all bad, me most definitely included.
- If I have to cancel a plan, it upsets me more than it will ever them.
- They are in my mind, and always in my heart.
- Again, and most importantly, I love them.
So, on that note, Merry ‘whatever winter festival floats your boat/summer festival if that’s the season you are in’ and a happy New Year (whenever that may start for you)!
*Apologies if you aren’t reading this around Christmas time. Pretend it’s like a TV repeat on ‘Dave’…
I am a big geek, the biggest. I have bigly geekiness, let me tell you. Many people tell me I have geek. This bigly geekiness led me to go see Marvel’s latest offering, Dr Strange, at the cinema as opposed to waiting until it has reached the smaller screen (worth it, the effects are incredible).
Before I went to see it, I was very aware of the controversial casting of Tilda Swinton as “The Ancient One” AKA “The Supreme Sorcerer”. The character in the graphic novels is a wizened old (stereotypical and quite racist depiction of an) East Asian man. The character in the film is specifically stated to be a woman of ‘celtic origin’ (and that caused controversy itself with my historian Sooterkin™ – no such place as ‘celt’ for a start…). Yay for the wimmins! Representation! This you might think would be my feminist stance.
No. Enough of the female white privilege already; the election in the United States of America has shown me more clearly than ever before the importance of the intersectionality of feminism and of white feminism acknowledging its privilege and stepped up by stepping down.
I have written about the importance of visibility before and now we have the rise of the right across the world, it is even more of a vital issue. White women were central to the election of Donald Trump with only white post graduate college-educated women voting for Hillary Clinton over The Fart® (a fact which boggles my mind, given his outspoken sexism and admitted sexual abuse).
If it was to play with gender that Ms Swinton (superb in the role, as she is in everything) was cast, then why swap out the race too? There are a LOT of Asian actors* who would have been able to play the role, and Marvel itself is no stranger to casting Asian and mixed-race Asian leads in its TV series (I’m thinking of Daisy and Mae in Marvel’s Agents of Shield). Or think even more outside the box, and cast a woman who is not of East Asian origin OR white! Indigenous US-American, for example, would open up all sorts of potentially fascinating storylines…
Representation is key to combatting the perpetuation of racist ideology. Misogynoir (the combined racist/sexist oppression suffered by Black women is on the rise, all ethnically identifying women face (dual at the very least) oppression; we need to WAKE THE F*^K UP RIGHT NOW!
Our sisters are dying, literally. When I say sisters, I mean sisters to ALL of us. We need to listen, really listen, and do what we can to fight this.
Privilege is very real, and it is now being bolstered by the ideology of the right that sees those who fight for a semblance of equality (i.e. equality of opportunity, as people are not equal in wants, needs, desires, abilities etc.) as ‘Social Justice Warriors’ (a derogatory term used by those who oppose feminism, anti-racism, anyone who fights against the prevailing prejudice within a system) who are high on a diet of ‘political correctness’ (or politeness and respect as I call it) and who are enemies to whomever is identified as ‘their own’.
I am fully aware of the opposition to the idea. I have had conversations with one male friend who has objected to the casting of more women in shows as being ‘pandering’ and ruining programmes; this before actually watching them – the assumption is that it is unnecessary and purely to meet some sort of arbitrary equality target. Maybe in part it is, but the gender of a character need not and should not affect the story especially in fantasy and sci-fi, genres where social inequalities are very often central to the storylines and which have a fine and long tradition of exploring potentialities.
I have had similar conversations with friends over the casting of people of different racial identities, disabilities etc. In every single one, and I am not exempting myself from this as I as much as anyone need to constantly address my inherent privileges, the first objection is that it is tokenism, the second that it is ‘ruining’ graphic novels adaptations to recast with different races/sexes etc., the third that there are ‘too many’ of a particular oppressed identity and it is not truly reflective.
It’s sci-fi/fantasy. Since when does it have to be ‘truly reflective’? It really isn’t and all media representation has a long way to go to be reflective anyway. (In case you are wondering, yes, I adore “Luke Cage”, “Jessica Jones” and “Daredevil” for what they are as well as for what they represent, but we need more!).
Even when the statistical equivalence is less than that which would reflect reality, those of privileged identities feel overtaken and pushed out, and that perceptions of the same behaviour differentiated by gender, for example, mean privilege remains the default position.
I have now reached the standpoint in my beliefs where I think it essential that we need to over-cast roles to represent an increased diversity. More actors than would be statistically equivalent to reality in a show, please! More black than white, more disabled than able-bodied, more transgender than cisgender, more ethnically diverse than whitewashed, more gay than straight, more of every oppressed group than not oppressed!
(pauses whilst the collective heads of the right and the unthinking privileged explode in utter horror)
We privileged have had way more than enough time in the spotlight. Time to sit our butts on the sidelines and let someone, some people, else shine. People of non-privileged identities, I don’t see you, but I really want to. Time for over-representation, not representation. Time for over-diversifying, not statistical reflectiveness. Affirmative action, on steroids!
Time for us privileged to get out of the way. Completely.
*I use the term ‘Actor’ because there is no reason to differentiate gender in the job of acting; the roles have genders, not the job of acting.
The Trump Card
What have you done, you poor and huddled masses?
Who sailed hopeful to the shores of your promised land.
You grew fat on the backs of immigrant oppression,
And we in our land co-founded, helped, and we profited.
But since then we thought that we had all learned.
Oh say, can you see, sweet land of liberty,
The horror of what you have allowed to become?
Did you not learn from the British concern,
When Europe broke down and we moved away,
To kill all the hope of those despair.
The star spangled banner in Trump triumph unfurls,
And smothers the land of the free and the brave,
In a wave of oppression and fall-out depression,
In God is your Trust but only the rich must
Be happy at this turn in the social hell.
I feel fear for my friends over the pond who
Are comforting the fearful they love who are scared,
That the Leader of the Free World, though self-proclaimed
Elected on grounds of bigotry and misogyny
Only the rich and the white are now safe.
© 9th November 2016
Hope will return, I am sure it will, along with the fighting spirit, because really, what other option is there?
I am a cisgender female adult; that is the identity through which I am viewing this topic. I will most likely make mistakes in my wording, and please do call me out if I show my privilege. I need to learn as much as anyone else does.
That said, I was intrigued by a discussion that occurred on a status message (ah, Facebook, you source of blogspiration, you) about children who identify as transgender.
The main problem is the dialogue that is used to talk about the experiences of transgender children – it’s always about how they ‘feel’ like a person of the other sex identity and how they were noticed by their cisgender parents as enjoying what are traditionally seen as toys/interests of the other sex identity than that they were assigned at birth; the confusing use of the word ‘gender’ when it is about ‘sex’ (as in male/female) too.
The stories of transgender children speak about so much more than interests and play; roles and choice of toys. It’s about seeing your body and not recognising it as the sex that everyone is telling you that you are. It’s about having a penis and wanting to cut it off because it is alien, it doesn’t belong, it’s not ‘you’. It’s about not going to the toilet at school because you don’t belong in the boys or girls bathroom, and wetting yourself instead (an experience reported by many transgender children). In the same way I, as a cisgender woman, know that my vagina is very much a part of me and that my breasts belong on my body and that my womb is the correct organ for my body to contain (whether it operates correctly or not is another question and bears no relation to my womanhood), a transgender man knows they are not. Children can feel this too, and it can lead to intense and significant mental health problems.
Cisgender people view society through the privileged prism of knowing that we are in the physical bodies which are correct. We don’t feel the disconnect, or the disgust, that testimonies of transgender people do. Children know this, in the same way they may recognise their natural sexuality at a young age but have no way to express or understand it.
The medical profession has always viewed transgender identity specifically through the cisgender privileged lens, meaning that in order to receive any form of treatment they have to conform to what are gender-specific stereotypes to ‘prove’ their sex/gender. Often yo will then find they are castigated and abused for conforming to such stereotypes. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. When it comes to children, the parents have no other way of ‘helping’ their child other than presuming and explaining to themselves through such stereotypes. When adults, and post-transition (at whatever point the transgender adult feels they need to reach as transitioning is a many faceted, many layered process) you will often find the stereotypes fall away as their body becomes their own and matches the sex/gender always was.
I would far rather the gender binary was done away with completely and we had no gender-specific pronouns etc, and that children were simply children and adults simply adults. However, that’s not the world we live in at the moment, and transgender identity is far more about the body/psyche than it is about conforming to a gender stereotype. That conformity is that which is pushed onto the identity, not the other way around.
We simply don’t have the language to be able to express exactly what it is to be transgender; our language (and I am speaking about English, as that is the language I was born and raised to use and understand) is gendered, our understanding is binary. There is male/female, man/woman, and language is created to reflect that. We have patriarchal systems and ideologies which maintain the binary, and this can be seen in our pronouns, our stereotypes, our conforming ideals. We identify inanimate objects by gender (ships are ‘she’ for example). Feminism argues against gender stereotyping, and transgender identity is absolutely a feminist issue.
I find, though, that the vast majority of people who worry about children being pushed into declaring themselves transgender and seeking treatment from doctors and psychologists are those who do not have transgender children. It is very much not being a ‘tomboy’ or a ‘girly-boy sissy’, and isn’t it telling how both are derogatory names for non-gender conforming behaviour yet that applied to the boy child is far more damaging than that applied to a girl. To be ‘feminine’ is deemed a negative for males as a giving away of the privilege, but to be ‘masculine’ is only negative for girls in that girls shouldn’t seek to dominate the way a boy ‘should’.
My understanding of transgender identity is that it is about so much more. It’s about the sex of one’s body and how one ‘knows’ that one is not in the correct physical body. I cannot know how that is, I am a cisgender woman.
It is at this point as an ally who strives to be a good ally, I must listen to the voices of those who are transgender and those who are raising transgender children. They are the voices of experience. They are the ones who must lead in the struggle. My job is to support and speak out, and call out if I can, and be called out when I should be, and most importantly, to accept that calling out.
Testimonies of parents and children:
An overview of transgender identity in history can be found here:
http://bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2008/02/transgender_history_trans_expression_in.php (also links to the other six parts of this series).
Or here (note: use of pre-transitional names in the article): https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues
Thank you for reading. Please share.
A Letter to My MP On the Labour Party Leadership Contest
I write further to your emails of 19th July and 17th August, and have been taking my time in responding partly because of my intense disappointment at your support of Owen Smith.
I fail to understand both why the PLP have behaved so abominably to their popularly elected leader and how you could support Owen Smith as a leader over Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed, the ———— Ward voted to support Jeremy Corbyn by an extremely narrow margin, and the meeting was better attended than most because the membership feel so strongly about supporting Jeremy Corbyn as leader. As at the date of writing, the vast majority of Wards have voted to support Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith, as have the majority of Unions.
I was very disappointed by an attendee at the meeting who stated he worked in your office and then proceeded to give his own personal opinion about how Jeremy Corbyn was ‘looking’ whilst working at the Houses of Parliament and attaching psychological meaning such as he was ‘looking tired’. In court this would be inadmissible as this worker is not a psychologist nor at his own admittance had he spoken with, nor did he have any knowledge of Jeremy Corbyn’s state of mind or physical capabilities. Surely we are attacked enough in this way by the right-wing press, we don’t need staffers and PLP members to denigrate based on personal opinion and propagandist interpretation?
Jeremy Corbyn has the support of the membership, and it is the membership who are the backbone of the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn represents the views of the Labour Party and it is extremely dismaying to see so blatantly that the PLP no longer do. It is time we as a party got over the failed experiment with ‘New’ Labour and the betrayal of the root and reason for the Labour Party. The party was formed to support the disenfranchised; to literally enfranchise the people and ensure they had a say in the running of the country. It is clearly stated in the Labour Party membership booklet what the aims are.
Furthermore, the disgraceful attempt to remove new members from being able to vote in the leadership election, despite the clear promise in the guidelines, and forcing the issue through court to a successful appeal (although given the Judge’s reported affiliations I do question that verdict and as a person working in the legal system I understand how such rulings are at appeal stage based on opinion and interpretation of contract law as opposed to a clear reading of the same) I have lost all faith in the elected members of parliament for the Labour party.
Sadly, this now includes you as you have openly stated your support for Owen Smith over Jeremy Corbyn. To me, your reasons for supporting Owen Smith seem entirely unfounded.
In your email of 19th July 2016, you state “It pains me to say it, but Jeremy has lost my support. Not because I disagree with his ideas though. I mean I was with him last night as we voted together against replacing Trident. But because I believe that we need to provide a credible alternative to the conservatives.” Jeremy Corbyn is a credible alternative to the conservatives; unfortunately by staging this coup at the most regrettable time, when the conservatives had been seen to lost the Brexit/Bremain vote and were at their most vulnerable, the PLP has itself discredited the Labour Party and missed a vital moment in which we could have defeated the Conservatives and shown Labour as the more effective political party. It is the PLP who lost the Labour Party its credibility, and this is the view of the majority of the membership as is shown by the clear support Jeremy Corbyn has across the Labour Party membership.
It was claimed that Jeremy Corbyn did not campaign sufficiently hard enough for the Remain vote. He attended over 100 events despite ‘being on holiday’ and made numerous television appointments. It seems his principled stand against debating alongside David Cameron was seen as problematic, yet many cite his principles as the best reason for supporting him. No matter what he did, he would have been criticised, which is proper in a democratic process. However, when it is his own PLP doing the criticism, they are doing the Conservative’s job for them. Is it any wonder the PLP is nicknamed ‘Tory lite’ or ‘Diet Tory’ when such behaviours are clearly on show? IPSO, Mori, YouGov and Survation polls all showed that Labour support for Remain stayed consistent throughout the campaigns. It was the Conservatives who failed this campaign. The PLP should have been acting on those facts instead of denigrating their democratically elected leader.
I fail to understand how the PLP cannot understand this and should appreciate your clear explanation as to why you believe Jeremy Corbyn has lost the credibility and support of the Labour Party membership and the public. Even the right wing press clearly states Jeremy Corbyn has the support of the people, yet opinion pieces such as that by Sadiq Khan and Owen Smith himself claim otherwise.
You also stated that “The man [Jeremy Corbyn] has principles, he is honest, but I believe it’s time for him to go.” This beggars my belief. Why would you want to get rid of a man of principle and honesty? You also state that Labour is a political party, not a fan club or protest group. This seems to indicate what you think of those of us who support Jeremy Corbyn; patronising, reductive and untrue as it may be. I have spoken with very many people who have been galvanised by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader; he provided hope, a strong leadership, and a believable pathway to equality and fighting for the minority and discriminated against groups within society who tend not to vote in general elections because they are not represented by the electoral candidates. Jeremy Corbyn gave these people, who in the last election represented 33.9% of the voting population, a voice. By taking this away the PLP are hoping to appeal to Conservatives. This has not worked over the last two general elections and the PLP is figuratively throwing away 33.9% of the voting population. This is a retrograde step and a huge mistake.
In your email of 17th August you state your reasons for supporting Owen Smith. You give a list of your beliefs, all of which are also those of the Labour Party AND Jeremy Corbyn, but the only reasons you give for specifically supporting Owen Smith are that you believe he will mean the Labour Party is in a stronger position to win with Owen Smith at the head of the party. This despite clear evidence that he does not have the support of the majority of the Labour Party members, and that he is seen by many as untrustworthy due to the fact he registered his website for the coup before resigning his position and worked for a private pharmaceutical company as a lobbyist before entering politics.
All the policies that Owen Smith claims to be standing by are those of Jeremy Corbyn, yet when it came down to it last year, Owen Smith abstained on the NHS Reinstatement Bill and Jeremy Corbyn did not. Voting records are publicly available at http://www.theyworkforyou.co.uk, and I think perhaps the PLP should pay more attention to how often such sites are accessed; it seems that some PLP members may not realise how public (rightly) their voting records are. Jeremy Corbyn showed an ability to work with cross-party members whilst holding to the principles of both himself and the Labour Party, it was Owen Smith who failed at this time.
You also stated in the email of 17th August that “Locally, we as a party need to ensure we remain an inclusive party focused on fighting and winning the next election.” I agree and applaud this stand. Yet it is Jeremy Corbyn who instigated the in-depth examination of anti-semitism within the Labour Party, through the report of Shami Chakrabarti, which also covered racism and islamophobia, and came to very useful conclusions. I have read the report as I am sure you have too, and given your support for inclusivity I am sure you applaud the conclusions and the implementation of the same. To date, Jeremy Corbyn is the only political leader ever to have taken any such step in the move to wipe out bigotry and discrimination within the ranks of a political party.
However, as I have stated before, it is Jeremy Corbyn who appeals to and has the support of those who are more often excluded from mainstream politics. Indeed, despite ——————— being a multi-cultural borough I was very disappointed to note that the heavily attended ———– Ward meeting was almost exclusively white (one attendee of middle Eastern heritage) and quite clearly the majority were home-owners and/or of middle-class description. Clearly the party which supports Owen Smith does not appeal to the non-voter or those who are defined as being of a minority group. Jeremy Corbyn is supported by the working class, those of BAME identity, and those groups who campaign for equality and are of non-privileged identities.
A clear message of the division between the candidates is on the Prevent measures and the reactions of the Islamic community to such a controversial anti-terrorist countermeasure. Owen Smith supports this measure, which is tantamount to racial profiling, whereas Jeremy Corbyn opposes it.
In my view it is very clear that Jeremy Corbyn remains the best candidate for leader of the Labour Party. I am deeply disappointed that you do not agree, and look forward to receiving your detailed response as to why you believe this. It is not Conservative voters we should be appealing to, it is the non-voters and it is there Jeremy Corbyn is superb as a leader. Jeremy Corbyn is not only re-engaging the Labour voters who left as a result of New Labour, but bringing in new members in the youth and the underprivileged people. These are precisely the people the Labour Party should be supporting and for whom the Labour Party was created.
I should appreciate specific reference to the policies of both candidates in your response. I look forward to hearing from you.
Last night my Sooterkin®, my ‘nephew’ BabyH© and myself went to see Suicide Squad; Sooterkin and I are big geekazoids and BabyH has the makings of one given that he is an avid gamer. We all enjoyed it. There are flaws; too many characters with too little back story due to the running time, massive jumps in shot meaning occasionally it was hard to tell where in the story we were, over-egging the smoke/rain/wind/fire so the action could not be seen, and I was angered by the killing of Slipknot, the only indigenous US-American character, very early on as the example to the Squaddies of what would happen if they defied Amanda Waller, and think if they were going to do that Captain Boomerang was way more annoying and pointless, but at least the male gender was very well represented. Viola Davis as Amanda Waller was very truthful to the graphic novel, and I wanted to see and know a lot more about Katana but Enchantress was really not the scary evil that was needed to make us feel the Suicide Squad’s evilness was balanced out. Overall, a good film but not a great one.
You could be forgiven for thinking this was the Harley Quinn film though, so much emphasis has been made about what is a tour de force performance by Margot Robbie. She has perfectly captured the Harley Quinn complexity even in such an ensemble piece (props to Will Smith as Deadshot too, loved the scenes with his daughter).
Such a furore has there been about the character of Harley that I have been asked my opinion as a trustworthy feminist (why, thank you, kind person). Talk of her overt sexualisation and the potential romanticizing of what is a blatantly and very dysfunctional relationship between Harley and the Joker has been everywhere, and both are valid points to be made. Harley has worn many different outfits over the years, but this outfit was definitely the least covering of them all. Those shorts – bumfloss! My vagina winced (sorry parents, if you read this).
She also spends much of the film covered in bruises, blood, smeared make-up and quite disheveled, so if a person can’t see past the outfit to the person then I question them, not the character.
Harley is a sexual character. Her background is touched on in the film, but not in depth and I believe there are vital pieces to her story missing. She was Dr Harleen Quinzel, Psychiatrist to the in-mates of Arkham Asylum. She was Joker’s psychiatrist. She and he fell into what has been described as love. The assumption is always that the Joker seduced and broke her down mentally, and he did. He was very abusive and cruel, narcissistic and psychotic. But you know what? Harley KNEW that. She was his appointed Psychiatrist. She had cruelty, madness and badness within her. They brought the worst out of each other. She is as much a part of the relationship and the insanity of the pair as he is, and to assume she is ‘the victim’ at all times is to ignore the agency of her as a woman, and abuse of her position as his treating Psychiatrist that she chose to undertake.
I’m not excusing Joker. But I refuse to excuse Harley too. They are a killer couple, as responsible as each other.
Harley is not a feminist icon, and I am getting a little tired of every single female character newly introduced into the comics world being expected to be one. Yes, new characters and new stories for existing characters should be written with the complex nuances of the modern world in mind, and it is not good enough simply to introduce female characters, we need female writers, artists, inkers, colourists, storyliners, editors, publishers and publicists in the mix too (also for all intersectional identities too). I asked the Manager in my nearest comic store why all his books, even new female characters, were written by men. The Manager had no answer apart from “I don’t know… they don’t sell?” Yes, he actually put it to me as a question. They don’t sell because you don’t offer them! There are female writers etc. out there but the industry is still one with a massive gender bias so more needs to be done.
Harley is a very sexualized character, but is it a sexuality in which she is in control. She is using and twisting the patriarchal views of sexuality against men in particular, but she is not specific to gender and has an open sexuality (would be nice if heroes could be more open with sexuality too). Harley is empowered in her choice of clothing, her awareness of her attractiveness and her use of it, and her refusal to be defined by it. This was not made clear in the film, and is one of the main shortcomings of Harley’s character. The costume in the film made me feel the same way I did when I saw Wonder Woman in Batman -v- Superman; that sinking feeling of “here we go again, take a strong female good or bad, and reduce her to an object for the male viewer”. Cover your legs, it provides more protection! Unnecessary crotch shot in the fighting scene in BvS too, but I digress…
The one thing that comes through very strongly, for me, with Harley’s character is that in the screwed-up situation that is the Suicide Squad, she is very much in control. She makes her own decisions, she is an intelligent woman (let’s not forget she is a doctor of Psychiatry, and as the film shows is fully aware of who she is surrounded by and what their particular diagnoses are). Joker is her kryptonite, but equally she is his. They really are not a romance story.
She is not a feminist icon. She is a well-rounded villain. She is not a hero. She is a very flawed human being. She is not an object, well, not only an object, but ALL women are objectified simply by being women in our society. All female characters are going to be put under a microscope, and if a person objects to what someone is wearing because they find it overtly sexual and presumes that is objectification, they really need to look at why they are having that reaction. In the context of the story and the character, is that true? In Harley’s case, I don’t think so, not in the film, not in the graphic novels and not in the character.
Oh, and for all those pathetic little geekazoids who are making idiot memes about how all these girls are suddenly going to come out as comic fans because of Harley and they are going to take over geek worlds and it’s SO UNFAIR and it’s political correctness gone mad and other such bullshit – were you born knowledgeable about your favourite characters? Who did you first identify with? Why? Did they reflect your own gender? How lucky for you that there were so many male characters around for you to identify with. How did people react when you expressed your interest? Were you questioned and denied the right to love the character because you couldn’t answer the detailed and intimate questions about what he did in comic #54 page 3 in 1973? Get off your fear-created privilege pole and get over yourself.
In that way, yes, Harley will prove a mighty step forward, if she does inspire women and girls get into the fantasy world of comics and graphic novels, and maybe that will mean more women and girls writing, drawing etc. If that does happen, BRILLIANT! But as a feminist icon, Harley is as flawed and dangerous as any really evil villain should be.
I am a person with disabilities. I was diagnosed with spinal osteoarthritis about 10 years ago, and it has degenerated, as it is wont to do. I have mobility problems and I need to use a disabled person’s freedom travel pass (DPFTP) to travel because I cannot know day-to-day if I am going to be able to walk or not (I also have epilepsy but that is fully controlled with life-long medication so doesn’t cause me problems in my everyday life). It was a heck of a fight to actually get a travel pass in the first place given the hoops you have to jump through (ha! As if I could jump let alone make it through a hoop!) to prove your disability. There is no understanding of the flexibility (again, ha!) and changeable nature of many mobility disabilities; one day I may be able to walk 500 metres, another day I’ll be lucky to get out of bed without collapsing. Every single day I am in pain, to varying levels.
This morning it was brought to my attention that disabled people are made invisible and restricted in what they can do (not new to me, but to many it may be). I was attempting to get onto the platform of my local (to my office, for yes, I am one of the ‘lucky’ disableds with a job, in a supportive workplace too!) train station to visit a new client.
I was denied access. Apparently my DPFTP will only work after 9.30 am on National Rail services. Check out the complicated map I have to try and understand every time I attempt to travel, that the staff didn’t give me and I had to download from t’interwebes myself (tough luck if you don’t have internet access, disableds):
(this also applies to people with older person’s travel passes; 60 for women, 65 for men – non-existent gods forbid you should work after this age, because everyone knows the state pension pays enough to live on champagne and oysters for the rest of your life).
I had understood I would be able to travel as this was the advice I had been given previously. However, my local (to my home) train station, being the one I would normally use, is on the underground as well as overground line, so I can only assume that it is the underground I am allowed to travel on. Same station, same platform, similar times, different operator, different rules. Confused? Yeah, me too.
I had to cancel my client meeting and source another firm nearer to their location to help them. This potential client was dying, about to be transferred to a hospice and desperately wanted a Will drafted, and we had done a lot of preparation to make this possible, so I feel terrible about this. I can only hope the other firm is able to help them.
Disabled people in England & Wales are now stuck in a situation where they are denied the ability to travel within normal working hours in the morning, yet are being bullied and threatened into applying for myriad jobs to which they cannot get for fear of losing the PIP they have been transferred onto because their disability has been deemed not to be ‘bad enough’ by a panel of unqualified non-medical personnel with no experience or empathy. (Scotland and Northern Ireland tend to have different rules; it may even vary county to county within England & Wales but many people commute to London so this affects ALL of them).
A disabled person’s freedom travel pass is not a luxury, it is an essential part of the life of a disabled person with mobility issues. Even with being in full-time work I still need it because I cannot know day-to-day how I may be. Mornings are always appalling now. Without the pass, I could not afford to work. I am lucky, my partner works but he needs the car (and I cannot always drive it, if my pain is particularly bad I cannot be safe behind the steering wheel) so I have to use public transport. That’s my individual experience; many have similar but different tales to tell.
Policy is not the same for all travel companies, and I was left humiliated, embarrassed, angry and apologetic to the staff who had suffered my ire (I did express my apologies as it is not their fault). To me, National Rail is clearly discriminating against disabled people who work, and given the government is determined to make as many disabled people enter the workforce as possible (even if they die whilst applying for jobs or are actually unable to work due to their particular disability*) this discrimination is going to become more widespread.
I’m still angry, so I’m not sure how much of this blog is making sense, and I’m left wondering if maybe I should just give up working. All I know is
- I’m disabled.
- I work full-time.
- I cannot use my travel pass on National Rail services during working hours, when able-bodied people can.
- The only difference between the passes is my disabled pass is free to me and non-disabled travel passes are paid for by the person using it.
- Policy on use of the DPFTP is inconsistent.
In my opinion, that’s discrimination.